If Congress votes no, should the President strike anyway?

[rug]

25 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	2 (8%)
	No
	23 (92%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[andym]

1. And he won't attack if Congress votes NO

The bid for congressional approval, basically ends the current attack scenarios, as Congress won't approve.

[elfin]

2. I bet they don't put it to a vote at all

They are chicken to vote and have to explain themselves.

[leftstreet]

5. The other day, Feinstein said Congress doesn't need to vote

Aug 29, 2013
Should the President wait for Congress to come back in? More than 100 members have signed a letter asking him to seek permission from Congress before he uses force in Syria.

There have been consultations. There will be more consultations. This is not to send troops over, as I understand it. So the answer is not necessarily. I think it would be, if there is not a timeline involved, obviously it would be good to wait, but if time is of the essence that’s decision the Administration has to make. I think there’s ways of doing consultations which is adequate.

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/29/feinstein-says-congress-need-not-vote-on-syria/#ixzz2dZauUVcc

punt, punt, punt

[alcibiades_mystery]

3. Of course not

[tritsofme]

4. I would assign a greater probability of it passing the Senate by unanimous consent

than being rejected. This is really an exercise in hypotheticals.

[Deep13]

6. This is his out.

He can say he tried to be tough, but Congress chickened out.

[rug]

8. I agree.

But it makes his statement today, about the gas attacks being a matter of national security, ring hollow.

[Catherina]

9. It is indeed n/t

[Catherina]

7. No, but he shouldn't strike without UNSC approval. n/t

[ucrdem]

10. absolutement pas.

If Cameron wants blood he's going to have get his own mitts dirty.

[global1]

11. Seems To Me If He Is Serious About This Strike & It Is A ....

matter of our national security - and he really feels he needs support in the form of a vote - the he should have called an emergency session & had the vote taken ASAP.

[alcibiades_mystery]

15. There are many different kinds of threats to national security

One would be of the imminent nature. That's the kind that grounds your claim that any action is an emergency.

Another is a long-term strategic threat: allowing the proliferation and use of chemical weapons falls into this category. Threats in this category don't require action immediately this week.

Your inability to recognize the distinction is what makes your post here so weak.

[global1]

19. Thank You For Pointing Out My Inability To Recognize That Distinction And That My Post Is Weak...nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. No. And, he should "red line" bluster from now on.

[Jefferson23]

13. No, absolutely not. If he gets approval, that will be unfortunate but at least he is seeking it. n/t

[Barack_America]

14. The more appropriate question is "If Congress FAILS to vote..."

There's no way this is coming to a vote in the House.

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. Wrong

The House will vote.

[tritsofme]

17. Of course it will get a vote.

Leadership in both caucuses will line up behind it, and opposition will be at the margins.

[1-Old-Man]

18. Only if he plans for an immediate Impeachment

But in truth I doubt very seriously that our Congress will ever make the decision.

[liberal_at_heart]

20. No he shouldn't, but Congress won't say no to war. They don't know how to resolve conflict

any other way.